Abstract
Objective
To define the relationship of tumor size with surgico-pathological factors and oncological
outcome in FIGO 2014 stage IB cervical cancer.
Methods
This study retrospectively evaluated 384 FIGO 2014 Stage IB cervical cancer patients
who underwent radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. Tumor size was stratified
according to 2 cm (≤ 2cm, 2-≤4 cm, >4 cm) and 4 cm (≤4 cm, >4 cm), and the relationship
with poor prognostic factors, and the effects on survival were examined. The distribution
of prognostic factors was compared between three subgroups: ≤2 cm vs. 2-≤4 cm; 2-≤4 cm vs. > 4 cm and ≤ 2 cm vs. > 4 cm. Survival rate was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with
the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards
regression.
Results
Stratification of tumor size according to 4 cm was found to better determine pelvic
lymph node determination. Parametrial involvement, uterine involvement and deep cervical
stromal invasion were correlated with increasing tumor size. Lymph node involvement
and uterine involvement were an independent prognostic risk factor for recurrence
and cancer-specific survival. Tumor size showed no association with prognosis.
Conclusion
There is no meaningful cut-off value for tumor size determining all surgico-pathological
factors. There was also seen to be no association between tumor size and recurrence
or disease-related mortality.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68: 394-424
- Class I versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. A prospective randomized study.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012; 38: 203-209
- A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a gynecologic oncology group study.Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 73: 177-183
- Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high- risk early-stage cancer of the cervix.J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 1606-1613
- Analysis of prognostic factors affecting the outcome of stage IB-IIB cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.Am J Clin Oncol. 2016; 39: 604-608
- Radical hysterectomy followed by tailored postoperative therapy in the treatment of stage IB2 cervical cancer: feasibility and indications for adjuvant therapy.Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 94: 61-66
FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009; 105: 103–4.
FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 125:97– 8.
- J Gynecol Obstet. 2019; 145: 129-135
- Tumor size has a time-varying effect on recurrence in cervical cancer.J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2016; 20: 317-320
- Significance of lymph node ratio in defining risk category in node-positive early stage cervical cancer.Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 136: 48-53
Wright JD, Matsuo K, Huang Y,et al. Prognostic performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics cervical cancer staging guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134:49-57.
- Prognostic effect of different cut-off values (20mm, 30mm and 40mm) for clinical tumor size in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer.Surg Oncol. 2010; 19: 106-113
- Outcomes after radical hysterectomy according to tumor size divided by 2- cm interval in patients with early cervical cancer.Ann Oncol. 2011; 22: 59-67
- Identifying selection criteria for non-radical hysterectomy in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer.J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019; 45: 882-891
- A cut-off value 2 cm in tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage IB cervical cancer.Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 134: 42-46
- Clinical tumor diamater and prognosis of patients with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer (JCOG0806-A).Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 137: 34-39
- Less versus more radical surgery in stage IB1 cervical cancer: a population-based study of long-term survival.Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 150: 44-49
- Clinical implication of surgically treated early-stage cervical cancer with multiple high-risk factors.J Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 26: 3https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2015.26.1.3
Xie L, Chu R, Wang K, et al. Prognostic Assessment of cervical cancer patients by clinical staging and surgical-pathological factor: A support vector machine-based approach. Front. Oncol. 10:1353.
- Stage IB1 cervical cancer treated with modified radical or radical hysterectomy: does size determine risk factors?.Ginekol Pol. 2018; 89: 667-671
- A prospective surgical pathological study of stage I squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.Gynecol Oncol. 1989; 35: 314-320
- Radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 vs IB2 carcinoma of the cervix: does the new staging system predict morbidity and survival?.Gynecol Oncol. 1996; 62: 139-147
- A comparison of stage IB1 and IB2 cervical cancers treated with radical hysterectomy. Is size the real difference?.Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 95: 70-76
- Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 1905-1914
- Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 1895-1904
- Long-Term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: the Norwegian radium hospital experience.Gynecol Oncol. 2021; 162: 284-291https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.028
- Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm.Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020; 30: 564-571
- Recurrence rates in patients with cervical cancer treated with abdominal versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective review study.JClin Oncol. 2020; 38: 1030-1040
- Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system.Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 152: 87-93
- Validation of the 2018 FIGO classification for cervical cancer: Lymphovascular space invasion should be considered in IB1 stage.Cancers. 2020; 12: 3554https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123554
- Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease?.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 240: 209-214
- Significance of the number of high-risk factors in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy.Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 157: 423-428
- Significance of uterine corpus tumor invasion in early-stage cervical cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43: 725-734
- Influence of uterine corpus invasion on prognosis in stage IA2-IIB cervical cancer: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 158: 273-281
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 28, 2021
Accepted:
September 26,
2021
Received in revised form:
July 26,
2021
Received:
May 3,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
